2. sigre v. ca

7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-sigre-v-ca 1/11

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109568. August 8, 2002.]

ROLANDO SIGRE, petitioner , vs . COURT OF APPEALS and LILIA

Y. GONZALES, as co-administratrix of the Estate of Matias Yusay,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 113454. August 8, 2002.]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner , vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and LILIA Y. GONZALES, as co-administratrix of the

Estate of Matias Yusay, respondents.

Miguel Gonzales, Norberto L. Martinez and Danilo B. Beramo for petitioner in G.R. No.

113454.

Delfin B. Samson for petitioner in G.R. No. 109568.

Ramon Gonzales for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

The issue of the case is the constitutionality of PD No. 27 and the validity of its related

laws. The Court ruled in the affirmative to all of them. PD No. 27 is the emancipation of

tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till.

Pursuant thereto, the DAR issued Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 to make

certain that the lease rental payment made by the tenant-farmer is applied to the

amortizations on the purchase price of the land. PD No. 816, on the other hand, provides

that the tenant-farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rental to the landowner until the

value of the property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the

DAR. This is not in conflict with Circular No. 6, which mandates that the tenant-farmer

shall pay the LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined. The

validity of PD No. 27 has also been repeatedly emphasized by the Court in a number of

cases; It does not set limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining just

compensation and neither does RA 6657 repeal or supersede PD 27. STHDAc

SYLLABUS

7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


1.LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; PD NO. 27; MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR

NO. 6 ISSUED BY THE DAR PURSUANT THERETO. — Presidential Decree No. 27 ,

issued on October 21, 1972 by then Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos, proclaimed the entire

country as a "land reform area" and decreed the emancipation of tenants from the

bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till. To achieve its

purpose, the decree laid down a system for the purchase by tenant-farmers, long-recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they were tilling. Owners of rice

and corn lands that exceeded the minimum retention area were bound to sell their lands to

qualified farmers at liberal terms and subject to conditions. It was pursuant to said decree

that the DAR issued Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of 1978.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; VALID AS SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION. — The power of

subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid

down in a statute by "filling in" the details. All that is required is that the regulation

should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in

contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. One suchadministrative regulation is DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6. As emphasized in De

Chavez v. Zobel , emancipation is the goal of P.D. 27., i.e., freedom from the bondage of

the soil by transferring to the tenant-farmers the ownership of the land they're tilling. As

noted, however, in the whereas clauses of the Circular, problems have been encountered

in the expeditious implementation of the land reform program, thus necessitating its

promulgation. The rationale for the Circular was explicitly recognized by the appellate

court when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of the circular is to make certain that the

lease rental payments of the tenant-farmer are applied to his amortizations on the

purchase price of the land. . . . The circular was meant to remedy the situation where the

tenant-farmer's lease rentals to landowner were not credited in his favor against thedetermined purchase price of the land, thus making him a perpetual obligor for said

purchase price." Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the noble

purpose of P.D. 27, it is therefore valid. Such being the case, it has the force of law and is

entitled to great respect. EcDTIH

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; NO "NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT" WITH PD 816. — The

Court cannot see any "irreconcilable conflict" between P.D. No. 816 and DAR

Memorandum Circular No. 6. Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that the tenant-

farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of the

property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR. On the

other hand, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented in 1978, mandates that the

tenant-farmer shall pay to LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been

determined. In Curso v. Court of Appeals, involving the same Circular and P.D. 816, it

was categorically ruled that there is no incompatibility between these two. Both

Memorandum Circular No. 6 and P.D. 816 were issued pursuant to and in

implementation of P.D. 27. These must not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction

with each other. Under P.D. 816, rental payments shall be made to the landowner. After

7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


the value of the land has been determined/established, then the tenant-farmers shall pay

their amortizations to the LBP, as provided in DAR Circular No. 6. Clearly, there is no

inconsistency between them. Au contraire, P.D. 816 and DAR Circular No. 6 supplement

each other insofar as it sets the guidelines for the payments of lease rentals on the

agricultural property.

4.ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONALITY, UPHELD. — That P.D. 27 does not suffer any

constitutional infirmity is a judicial fact that has been repeatedly emphasized by this

Court in a number of cases. As early as 1974, in the aforecited case of De Chavez v.

Zobel , P.D. 27 was assumed to be constitutional, and upheld as part and parcel of the law

of the land. Thereafter, in Gonzales v. Estrella, which incidentally involves private

respondent and counsel in the case at bench, the Court emphatically declared that

"Presidential Decree No. 27 has survived the test of constitutionality." Then, in 1982,

P.D. 27, once again, was stamped with judicial imprimatur in Association of Rice & Corn

Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform Council . Further, in

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, involving the constitutionality of P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A.

6657, any other assault on the validity of P.D. 27 was ultimately foreclosed when it was

declared therein that "R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and

229 are SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein

petition."

5.ID.; ID.; THAT IT SETS LIMITATIONS ON THE JUDICIAL PREROGATIVE OF

DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION IS BEREFT OF MERIT. — The objection

that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional as it sets limitations on the judicial prerogative of

determining just compensation is bereft of merit. P.D. 27 provides: "For the purpose of

determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this

Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2 1/2) times the

average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of

this Decree;" Also, the determination of just compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in

Section 16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final or conclusive. Under Section 2

of E.O. 228, unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the

property by the Barrio Committee on Land Production and the DAR, the parties may

bring the dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation,

a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the court.

6.ID.; ID.; IN RELATION TO RA 6657 (CARP LAW). —

The Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657

covers all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain

suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No.

229; while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides

for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states:

"(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice

7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


and corn lands, covered thereunder. . . ." It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657

did not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that

are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, and all rights

acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with the passage of R.A.

6657. ECaAHS

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J p:

In a not-so-novel attempt to challenge the long-settled constitutionality of Presidential

Decree No. 27, private respondent Lilia Y. Gonzales, as co-administratrix of the Estate of

Matias Yusay, filed with the Court of Appeals on September 15, 1992, a petition for

prohibition and mandamus docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 28906 , seeking to prohibit theLand Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from accepting the leasehold rentals from Ernesto

Sigre (predecessor of petitioner Rolando Sigre), and for LBP to turn over to private

respondent the rentals previously remitted to it by Sigre. It appears that Ernesto Sigre was

private respondent's tenant in an irrigated rice land located in Barangay Naga, Pototan,

Iloilo. He was previously paying private respondent a lease rental of sixteen (16) cavans

per crop or thirty-two (32) cavans per agricultural year. In the agricultural year of 1991-

1992, Sigre stopped paying his rentals to private respondent and instead, remitted it to the

LBP pursuant to the Department of Agrarian Reform's Memorandum Circular No. 6,

Series of 1978, which set the guidelines in the payment of lease rental/partial payment by

farmer-beneficiaries under the land transfer program of P.D. No. 27. The pertinent provision of the DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 reads:

"A.Where the value of the land has already been established.

"The value of the land is established on the date the Secretary or his authorized

representative has finally approved the average gross production data

established by the BCLP or upon the signing of the LTPA by landowners and

tenant farmers concerned heretofore authorized.

"Payment of lease rentals to landowners covered by OLT shall terminate on thedate the value of the land is established. Thereafter, the tenant-farmers shall

pay their lease rentals/amortizations to the LBP or its authorized agents:

provided that in case where the value of the land is established during the

month the crop is to be harvested, the cut-off period shall take effect on the next harvest season. With respect to cases where lease rentals paid may exceed the

value of the land, the tenant-farmers may no longer be bound to pay such rental,

but it shall be his duty to notify the landowner and the DAR Team Leader

7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


concerned of such fact who shall ascertain immediately the veracity of the

information and thereafter resolve the matter expeditiously as possible. If the

landowner shall insist after positive ascertainment that the tenant-farmer is to pay rentals to him, the amount equivalent to the rental insisted to be paid shall

be deposited by the tenant-farmer with the LBP or its authorized agent in his

name and for his account to be withdrawn only upon proper writtenauthorization of the DAR District Officer based on the result of ascertainment

or investigation." 1 (Italics ours)

According to private respondent, she had no notice that the DAR had already fixed

the 3-year production prior to October 1972 at an average of 119.32 cavans per

hectare, 2 and the value of the land was pegged at Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred

Five Pesos and Sixty-Seven Centavos (P13,405.67). 3 Thus, the petition filed before

the Court of Appeals, assailing, not only the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 6,

but also the constitutionality of P.D. 27.

The appellate court, in its decision dated March 22, 1993, gave due course to the petitionand declared Memorandum Circular No. 6 null and void. 4 The LBP was directed to

return to private respondent the lease rentals paid by Sigre, while Sigre was directed to

pay the rentals directly to private respondent. 5 In declaring Memorandum Circular No. 6

as null and void, the appellate court ruled that there is nothing in P.D. 27 which sanctions

the contested provision of the circular; 6 that said circular is in conflict with P.D. 816

which provides that payments of lease rentals shall be made to the landowner, and the

latter, being a statute, must prevail over the circular; 7 that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional in

laying down the formula for determining the cost of the land as it sets limitations on the

judicial prerogative of determining just compensation; 8 and that it is no longer

applicable, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657. 9

Hence, this present recourse, which is a consolidation of the separate petitions for review

filed by Rolando Sigre (who substituted his predecessor Ernesto Sigre), docketed as G.R.

No. 109568 and the LBP, docketed as G.R. No. 113454.

Petitioner Sigre, in G.R. No. 109568, alleges that:

"I

"PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT DAR MEMORANDUM

CIRCULAR NO. 6, SERIES OF 1978 RUNS COUNTER TO PRESIDENTIALDECREE NO. 816.

"II

http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/1980?search=gr%3A+%28109568%2A%29#footnotes




































7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


"PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT DAR

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6, SERIES OF 1978 AMENDS OR

EXPANDS PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.

"III

"PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT PROVISION OF

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 ON THE FORMULA FOR

DETERMINING THE COST OF THE LAND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

"IV

"PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROVISION OF

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 ON FIXING THE JUST

COMPENSATION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLICACT NO. 6657." 10

Petitioner LBP, in G.R. No. 113454, claims that:

"A

"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THATMAR CIRCULAR NO. 6 IS A VALID PIECE OF ADMINISTRATIVE

RULES AND REGULATION COVERING A SUBJECT GERMANE TO THE

OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27,

CONFORMING TO THE STANDARDS OF SAID LAW AND RELATINGSOLELY TO CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF

SAID LAW.

"B

"THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT MAR CIRCULAR NO. 6 IS INVALID IN THAT IT SUFFERS 'IRRECONCILABLE

CONFLICT' WITH PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 816, THUS GROSSLY

DISREGARDING THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE SUPREMECOURT THAT THERE IS NO 'INCONSISTENCY OR INCOMPATIBILITY'

BETWEEN MAR CIRCULAR NO. 6 AND P.D. 816.

"C

"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT P.D.27, INSOFAR AS IT SETS FORT ( sic) THE FORMULA FOR

DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE RICE/CORN LAND, IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THUS GROSSLY DISREGARDING THEEXISTING JURISPRUDENCE THAT CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT P.D.





7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


27 IS SUSTAINED AGAINST ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS

RAISED AGAINST IT.

"D

"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT P.D.27 HAS BEEN IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657." 11

Presidential Decree No. 27 , 12 issued on October 21, 1972 by then Pres. Ferdinand E.

Marcos, proclaimed the entire country as a "land reform area" and decreed the

emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership

of the land they till. To achieve its purpose, the decree laid down a system for the

purchase by tenant-farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the

lands they were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded the minimum

retention area were bound to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and

subject to conditions. 13 It was pursuant to said decree that the DAR issued

Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of 1978.

The Court of Appeals held that P.D. No. 27 does not sanction said Circular, particularly,

the provision stating that payment of lease rentals to landowners shall terminate on the

date the value of the land is established, after which the tenant-farmer shall pay their

lease rentals/amortizations to the LBP or its authorized agents.

We disagree. The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to

implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details. All that is

required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law;

that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. 14 One such administrative regulation is DAR Memorandum

Circular No. 6. As emphasized in De Chavez v. Zobel , 15 emancipation is the goal of

P.D. 27., i.e., freedom from the bondage of the soil by transferring to the tenant-farmers

the ownership of the land they're tilling. As noted, however, in the whereas clauses of the

Circular, problems have been encountered in the expeditious implementation of the land

reform program, thus necessitating its promulgation, viz .:

"1.Continued payment of lease rentals directly to landowners by tenant-farmers

may result to situations wherein payments made may even exceed the actualvalue of the land. . .

"2.There is difficulty in recording lease rental payments made by tenant-farmersto landowners specifically in cases where landowners concerned refuse to issue

acknowledgment/official receipts for payments made;





















7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


"3.Payments made by tenant-farmers to landowners after the establishment of

Farmer Amortization Schedule (FAS) through the National Computer Center

were found to be ineffectively captured or accounted for. . . .

"4.The prolonged disagreement between parties concerned on the total

payments made by the tenant-farmers has delayed program implementations."

The rationale for the Circular was, in fact, explicitly recognized by the appellate court

when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of the circular is to make certain that the lease

rental payments of the tenant-farmer are applied to his amortizations on the purchase

price of the land. . . . The circular was meant to remedy the situation where the tenant-

farmer's lease rentals to landowner were not credited in his favor against the

determined purchase price of the land, thus making him a perpetual obligor for said

purchase price." 16 Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the

noble purpose of P.D. 27, it is therefore valid. 17 Such being the case, it has the force

of law and is entitled to great respect. 18

The Court cannot see any "irreconcilable conflict" between P.D. No. 816 19 and DAR

Memorandum Circular No. 6. Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that the tenant-

farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of the

property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR. On the

other hand, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented in 1978, mandates that the

tenant-farmer shall pay to LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been

determined.

In Curso v. Court of Appeals, 20 involving the same Circular and P.D. 816, it was

categorically ruled that there is no incompatibility between these two. Thus:

"Actually, we find no inconsistency nor incompatibility between them. Of

significance are the two 'whereas' clauses of P.D. 816 quoted hereunder:

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, under P.D. No. 816, rentals are to be paid to the landowner by the

agricultural lessee until and after the valuation of the property shall have been

determined.

In the same vein, the MAR Circular provides:

xxx xxx xxx

In other words, the MAR Circular merely provides guidelines in the payment of lease rentals/amortizations in implementation of P.D. 816. Under both P.D. 816

and the MAR Circular, payment of lease rentals shall terminate on the date the

value of the land is established. Thereafter, the tenant farmers shall pay





















7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


amortizations to the Land Bank (LBP). The rentals previously paid are to be

credited as partial payment of the land transferred to tenant-farmers." 21

Private respondent, however, "splits hairs," so to speak, and contends that the Curso caseis premised on the assumption that the Circular implements P.D. 816, whereas it is

expressly stated in the Circular that it was issued in implementation of P.D. 27. 22 Both

Memorandum Circular No. 6 and P.D. 816 were issued pursuant to and in

implementation of P.D. 27. These must not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction

with each other. Under P.D. 816, rental payments shall be made to the landowner. After

the value of the land has been determined/established, then the tenant-farmers shall pay

their amortizations to the LBP, as provided in DAR Circular No. 6. 23 Clearly, there is no

inconsistency between them. Au contraire, P.D. 816 and DAR Circular No. 6 supplement

each other insofar as it sets the guidelines for the payments of lease rentals on the

agricultural property.

Further, that P.D. 27 does not suffer any constitutional infirmity is a judicial fact that has

been repeatedly emphasized by this Court in a number of cases. As early as 1974, in the

aforecited case of De Chavez v. Zobel , 24 P.D. 27 was assumed to be constitutional, and

upheld as part and parcel of the law of the land, viz .:

"There is no doubt then, as set forth expressly therein, that the goal isemancipation. What is more, the decree is now part and parcel of the law of the

land according to the revised Constitution itself. Ejectment therefore of

petitioners is simply out of the question. That would be to set at naught an

express mandate of the Constitution. Once it has spoken, our duty is clear;obedience is unavoidable. This is not only so because of the cardinal postulate

of constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental law. It is also because

any other approach would run the risk of setting at naught this basic aspirationto do away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war with the promise and

the hope associated with an open society. To deprive petitioners of the small

landholdings in the face of a presidential decree considered ratified by the newConstitution and precisely in accordance with its avowed objective could indeed

be contributory to perpetuating the misery that tenancy had spawned in the past

as well as the grave social problems thereby created. There can be no

justification for any other decision then whether predicated on a juridical norm

or on the traditional role assigned to the judiciary of implementing and notthwarting fundamental policy goals." 25

Thereafter, in Gonzales v. Estrella, 26 which incidentally involves private respondent and

counsel in the case at bench, the Court emphatically declared that "Presidential Decree

No. 27 has survived the test of constitutionality." 27





























7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


Then, in 1982, P.D. 27, once again, was stamped with judicial imprimatur in Association

of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform Council ,

28 to wit:

". . . If as pointed out in the opening paragraph, the validity of Presidential

Decree No. 27 was assumed as early as 1974, on the first anniversary of the present constitution, in De Chavez v. Zobel and specifically upheld in Gonzales

v. Estrella five years later, there cannot be any justification for holding that it is

unconstitutional on its face without any factual foundation." 29

Further, in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, 30 involving the constitutionality of P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 31 and

229, 32 and R.A. 6657, 33 any other assault on the validity of P.D. 27 was ultimately

foreclosed when it was declared therein that "R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No.

131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED against all the constitutional

objections raised in the herein petition." 34

The objection that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional as it sets limitations on the judicial

prerogative of determining just compensation is bereft of merit. P.D. 27 provides:

"For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to thetenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent

to two and one half (2 1/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years

immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;"

E.O. 228 supplemented such provision, viz .:

"SEC. 2.Henceforth, the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D. 27

shall be based on the average gross production determined by the BarangayCommittee on Land Production in accordance with Department Memorandum

Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and related issuances and regulation of the

Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production per hectare shall

be multiplied by two and a half (2.5), the product of which shall be multiplied by Thirty Five Pesos (P35.00), the government support price for one cavan of

50 kilos of palay on October 21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos (P31.00), the

government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21,

1972, and the amount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land, as

the case may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer andcompensation to the landowner."

The determination of just compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in Section 16 (d) of

R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final or conclusive. 35 This is evident from the

succeeding paragraph of Section 2 of E.O. 228:
































7/27/2019 2. SIGRE V. CA


". . . In the event of dispute with the landowner regarding the amount of lease

rental paid by the farmer beneficiary, the Department of Agrarian Reform and

the Barangay Committee on Land Production concerned shall resolve thedispute within thirty (30) days from its submission pursuant to Department of

Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973, and other

pertinent issuances. In the event a party questions in court the resolution of thedispute, the landowner's compensation shall still be processed for payment andthe proceeds shall be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank in

accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the resolution of

the dispute before the court."

Clearly therefrom, unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the

valuation of the property by the Barrio Committee on Land Production and the DAR,

the parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount

of compensation, a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the court. caIDSH

Finally, the Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operatesdistinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land

including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in

Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; 36 while, P.D. 27 covers rice and

corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the mechanism of the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states: "(P)residential Decree No.

27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered

thereunder. . . 37 It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or

supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that are not

inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, 38 and all rights acquired by

the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657. 39

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions filed by Rolando Sigre and the Land Bank of

the Philippines are hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is

hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE and the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 28906 is

DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr . , C . J . , Vitug and Kapunan, JJ . , concur.

Ynares-Santiago, J . , took no part.

















2. sigre v. ca

Documents